Frogs

Anuran Communication by Michael J. Ryan (Smithsonian) In this book, twenty-five scientists from around the world synthesize what is known about how frogs and toads communicate. The contributors-experts in disciplines including animal behavior, developmental biology, endocrinology, evolution, ecology, and neurobiology examine this amphibian order's vocal, visual, and chemical signals, the physiology and energetics of their production, neural processing, related behaviors, and evolutionary implications. They explain that recent research developments have led to further understanding of how the anuran larynx affects sound production, how the anuran brain recognizes sound, and how both of these processes are influenced by an amphibian's physiological state. The contributors also discuss male-to-male call strategies and female preferences for call variation, which contribute to sexual selection, speciation, and hybridization. The book presents new material about kin recognition abilities and the surprising range of visual displays by tropical anurans, and examines how the inherent structure of the anuran auditory system might generate sensory biases that influence signal evolution.

Uniting two overarching concerns of biologists today-the interaction of communication with sexual selection and the mechanisms that underlie flexible behavior-this book shows that the study of anuran communication provides α useful model for other animal behavior research. It contributes to the understanding of general patterns, processes, and mechanisms affecting anuran communication.

Excerpt:

Readers who choose Anuran Communication as their first book on frogs and who have never visited the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama may well ask why there is α whole book dedicated to Α. S. Rand. That question has both a particular and α general answer. The particular answer is that this person, Stan Rand, is one of the finest tropical field biologists in the world, and probably one of the best tropical herpetologists of all time, respected for his uncanny ability to find and understand living organisms in the field, as well as for his technical know-how and understanding of evolutionary biology. Armed with α vast knowledge of natural history and α formidable sense of humor, he has inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to study tropical reptiles and amphibians in the field. Some of those people-the authors of this bookgathered for α two-day symposium at the 1998 meeting of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. This was an appropriate tribute to Rand, for he has published prominently on so many of the groups covered under "Herps" at the "Ιchs and Herps" meeting: crocodiles, snakes, geckos, iguanas, anuran lizards, and of course frogs.

The more general answer to the question, "Why α whole book?" has to do with the value such α biologist has for α field of science. This book brings together an outstanding group of scientists drawn from α variety of disciplines between which there is often little interaction. All of them are interested in some aspect of animal communication, and all do some work on frogs. But they are united by α third factor, and that factor is Stan Rand. Because Rand knows the organisms and the issues well enough to connect with all of these fields, he ends up being the hub of α broad interconnected research enterprise. He is the one who, by his unparalleled understanding of the organisms, can bring collaborators together and make α cohesive group out of α diverse collection of individual scientists, and can make α model organism out of α frog-or, in some of his earlier work, α lizard. Ernest Williams, with considerable input from Stan, was similarly the hub for α group of scientists focused on the genus anuri, making it into α model group for studies of ecology, evolution, and biogeography. The Anuran Newsletter" was α famous sign of the enthusiasm and unifying synthetic power of what Ι am calling taxon-centered research.

When α taxon becomes the focal organism for research, there is α tremendous multiplier effect on the increase in knowledge that can result. Τaxon-centered research is α self-accelerating process. The more you know about α particular species or α particular group of organisms the more you can find out about it, and the more valuable it is as α resource for research of general interest.

Α taxon-centered biologist is α person who sets out to learn everything he or she can about a particular species or group, α person who is interested in every aspect of its biology and who lets the organism suggest the important questions.

Ι worry that biology today has too few taxon-centered biologists. The scarcity of such people is a kind of crisis in modern biology. Why does it matter? Consider what can happen in fields where taxon-centered biologists are scarce, fields like genetics, psychology, and developmental biology These fields can easily get fixated on a narrow set of species subjected to a narrow set of questions-Drosophila and Ε. coli in genetics, the white rat in psychology, nematodes, Χenopus, Drosophila, and "the mouse" in developmental biology, for example. When this happens biologists in these fields are in a trap. Α student could not dare work on another species and hope to compete, not only because of the backlog of information on the traditional species, but because there are unlikely to be Taxon-centered biologists around to consult regarding other potentially useful species. No one is likely to know enough about any other organism to start in a new direction or to help a student do so.

Someone could argue that these taxon-poor narrowly focused fields are the most successful of all. But eventually such a field runs into a wall where limited vision is a handicap. Developmental biologists are running into such a wall in their limited ability to answer questions about evolution. This has driven them, for example, to consult entomologists about the comparative biology of segmentation in insects in an effort to understand the evolution of the Ηοx genes that regulate segmental diversification. How typical is Χenopus of amphibians, and the mouse of mammals? What is the natural history of learning in wild rats? It takes a broadly informed taxon-centered biologist to answer these questions, which are crucial for a deeper understanding of both mechanisms and ideas.

There is a long list of specialized frog users who would have run into a wall if they had not first run into Stan Rand. In the last 10 years he has collaborated with molecular phylogeneticists, spectral analysts of sound, alkaloid chemists studying acquisition of defensive chemicals, physiologists studying the physical properties of air and water for flight and sound production, students of nutrition and growth, researchers of diurnal activity patterns, biodiversity experts doing surveys of neotropical vertebrates, climate experts interested in the effects of Εl Nino and seasonality, and a morphologist working on how to tell the age ο£ a vertebrate from its bones.

What has caused the shortage of taxon-centered biologists, and how can we do something about it? One cause is the emphasis on hypothesis testing in graduate education.

Hypothesis testing has improved the level of research in biology and raised the quality of doctoral theses, but it has driven students away from organisms into a belief that meaningful questions can be, or even must be, formulated without knowing some organism first. So people lose something-the feeling, or the conviction, that you can be a first-rate biologist and even get a job if you start with an organism and aim to find out all you can about it-everything it does and is, testing hypotheses, yes, but letting the organism lead you to the important questions.

Of course you would not choose a research organism without reference to concepts or questions. First you might decide in general what concept or field or idea you are interested in. Then you would pick a group or a species that has at least certain key qualities of interest, and is reasonably common and accessible. Then you would set out to become the world's expert on the organism, always, of course, asking questions but not too narrowly at first.

Isn't this risky? Is it bad advice for a beginner? Absolutely not. There is a secret, though, to doing this successfully. The secret is to select your own organism, one not too much studied, especially in your field and especially not by your major professor. Sounds risky again? It is true that some of the old guys-professors-would have to approve, but perhaps they could learn that if you start with a new organism, originality is assured. Quick status as a world authority is assured. Important new ideas are guaranteed, because the organism will lead you to new ideas if you just give it a chance.

Many people think that reading theory is a quicker route to a conceptual splash. You can criticize old theories and make a new model to replace them, and then find a suitable organism and devise a test. That is what Ι would call risky. Ιf, instead, you test and modify theory by reflecting on an organism-your favorite organism, the one you know well you are assured of a biologically meaningful answer. If you just think abstractly and then pick what you optimistically think will be a convenient or easy organism, you are far more likely to go off the track or along the same track others would take.

Headline 3

insert content here

WT Main | About WT | Review Links | Contact | Review Sources | Search